So, you are on the negotiating committee?! Unless you were there, what is said behind closed doors is nothing more than hearsay. Or did "a buddy" tell you what happened? Regardless, to challenge a corporate officer is NOT a successful negotiating strategy IMO. In my estimation, EVERYTHING that is agreed upon will be put in writing so why do you feel the need to communicate that someone might have employed such an antagonistic approach to negotiating?

As far as 6 months living expenses is concerned, isn't that dependent on the assets and liabilities of the individual? Perhaps that may be your recommendation based on your finances. I see your point but wouldn't it just be better to say what the pay or retirement contribution is and leave it at that instead of saying the reason for coming here is to get typed and bail? People will do that regardless....or stay. Just leave the BS out of it.

I trust our negotiating committee. Period.

As far as the 6th months comment. You'll make $1600 a month for 4 months then a 50 hour guarantee month 5. This has been discussed. Month 6 doesn't get much better especially if it contains your PT that disrupts your Rig. 1st year pay is around $47-48k.

The retirement is a 5% match on your 10% contribution. It's horrible. Only Kalitta has a worse retirement in ACMI. Go out side of ACMI and it gets worse.

I'm not sure what your argument is.

If you don't contribute to a 401k, then irregardless of pay you're an idiot. Atlas pilots may be paid way under the going rate but its still well over the national median income. Its inexcusable to say you can't afford to contribute especially when the company is offering essentially free money as a contribution. Doesn't matter if its 1, 5, or 16% you're basically telling the company "no thanks" to a ton of tax free money.

No arguments for me other than the new guys who may be facing a credit card bill with 20% interest or the retirement contribution. Surprisingly though many who don't put in are off probation.

Still... Our retirement is woefully behind the free market value of our labor. Attrition reflects that.

There is no disputing whether or not you trust our negotiating committee. The question is and remains, "WERE YOU THERE?" during negotiations and heard first hand if Dietrich was "pressed to put it writing" or is it hearsay? The point here is that you are just as guilty as Dietrich supposedly is of not answering the question!!

Also, you can't say that new hires will be facing a credit card bill. You have ZERO insight to a new hires finances. You are projecting your opinion onto others to bolster your argument. It makes you sound desperate and uneducated. And once again you are throwing around baseless claims with "attrition reflects that" comment. You just can't help yourself can you? You have been poisoned by your own hysteria....you actually believe the BS you are eating and spewing.

Our contract shortcomings are not in dispute either. It is the ridiculously exaggerated comments that have become well overplayed in this political game that are in question. Get a new hammer.

What? It doesn’t matter what they match? The current, pathetic match yields about $5k in company money if you max your contribution. Hardly a ‘ton’ of money, and definitely not tax free.

The OP is just saying that to NOT contribute while you are here is throwing away a free contribution regardless of the amount. Our lack of retirement contributions compared to industry peers is not in dispute.

Do you tell them this to their faces? No? Didn't think so...

Passing blind and blanket judgment on complete strangers because of their personal financial decisions is the mark of an immature idiot.

Oh, and irregardless is not a word.

I don't think the OP is passing blind judgement or implying that he would be calling someone "an idiot" to their face for not contributing to a company 401k program that has matching contribution. But what you did was twist the meaning of the OP's response so you could throw in an insult and correct him at the same time to make yourself look superior. Classic inferiority complex.

Additionally, it is common knowledge that IF a company offers a 401k program, regardless of the amount, it is financially prudent to contribute to get the maximum match and not a penny more. There are far more economic instruments in the industry outside of 401k programs that have greater yields, so if one has the economic resources and wherewithal after making the maximum 401k match any additional contribution amount should be deferred into those programs.

The first sentence of his post blatantly achieves exactly as I previously stated all by itself, and the remainder is no better.

Your “defense” is merely a pathetic irony in which you come on with yet a further attempt to blanket-diagnose a complete stranger. Thank you for reinforcing my original point.